Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
OTIS ELEVATOR CO. v. WALSTAD et al., 1930 — 37 F.2d 895 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
OTIS ELEVATOR CO. v. WALSTAD et al.
37 F.2d 895·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1930
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
OTIS ELEVATOR CO. v. WALSTAD et al.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 10, 1930.
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1930.
No. 5670.
T. J. Blackwell, of Miama, Fla. (Huber, Blackwell & Gray, of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellant.
F. M. Hudson and Rudolph Isom, both of Miami, Fla. (Hudson & Cason, of Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellees.
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — FOSTER, Circuit Judge.]
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellee recovered damages for personal injuries caused by the falling of an elevator in the Dade county courthouse, in which she was a passenger. Error is. assigned to the refusal of a directed verdict and to portions of the charge to the effect that a presumption of negligence on the part of appellant arose from the accident.
There is no doubt appellee was injured while a passenger in the elevator. There was evidence tending to show that the building had just been about completed and was open to the public. Appellant had installed the elevators; some had been accepted and were being operated by the county, but the one involved in the accident had not been accepted. It was being operated by an agent of the appellant for its own convenience and the public was permitted to use it.
The record presents no reversible error.
Affirmed.